@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Manoj Misra, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. By the present application, the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant (opposite party No. 2), have sought quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 48 of 2013 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Orai, District Jalaun, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotra, District Jalaun.
2. A perusal of the complaint, and paragraph 4 in particular, disclose the involvement of the applicants in commission of the offences for which they have been summoned. There is an injury report also to support the allegations. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance on the complaint proceeded to hold an inquiry by recording statement of the complainant u/s 200 and of the witnesses u/s 202, Cr.P.C. to ascertain whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. After considering the allegations, the injury report and the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate recorded satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants and, accordingly, summoned the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.
3. Challenging the proceedings, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as the applicants, who are the accused, reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court, where cognizance has been taken, therefore, before issuing process the learned Magistrate ought to have himself inquired or to have directed an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It has been submitted that by virtue of amendment of sub-section (1) of section 202, by Act No. 25 of 2005, with effect from 23.06.2006, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, such an inquiry is mandatory and in absence thereof, the order issuing process stands vitiated. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is completely misconceived, inasmuch as, the learned Magistrate has himself held an inquiry by recording statement on oath of the complainant and her witnesses Vinay Mishra and Gaya Prasad, under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. respectively, which are on record as Annexure Nos. 3, 4 and 5. It is only after recording the statements, and consideration of the same along with injury report, the learned Magistrate drew satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case for proceeding against the applicants and has summoned them accordingly.
6. The term inquiry as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 202 is a pre-trial inquiry, as would be clear from Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines inquiry as every inquiry, other than trial, conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court. In
7. As in the instant case, the process has been issued after recording the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses as also after recording satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case against the accused, upon consideration of the statements so recorded as also the material brought on record, it cannot be said that there was no compliance of the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as there are allegations against all the accused who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. As the complaint allegations and the statements made in support thereof as also the injury report do make out a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants neither the summoning order nor the consequential proceedings can be quashed. The prayer of the applicant to that extent is therefore rejected.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a simple matrimonial discord between husband and wife has been given color of a dowry case. It has been submitted that subsequent to filing of the complaint, the husband (the applicant No. 1) filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed ex parte, thereby disclosing that the complainant had no justifiable cause to live separate. It has been submitted that the complaint allegations are nothing but false.
10. Be that as it may, the veracity of the allegations cannot be tested at this stage, inasmuch as, at this stage, the allegations are to be taken at their given face value. And since from the complaint allegations and the material in support thereof a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants is made out the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, within a period of four weeks from today, their bail application shall be considered in accordance with law laid down in the case of
